1)Install BG2/ToB
2)Install Patch
3)G3 Fixpack Beta
4)G3 Tweaks

I'm just trying to go bug-free here!

TIA

It should work bug-free, but asides from cosmetic changes and tweaks (and you do not even like some of them, based on your previous topic), there are no significant enchantments to your game. :(

Well I have more than 30 mods and I do not have a significant bug now. (knock on the wood) And I finished BG2+ToB twice so far with these mods. (three is close, when I go home for a week! :roll: )

Oh, and have Ease of Use too, it has some good components to make your time less painful. (true heroes should not spend time organising and micro-managing their inventory, for instance!)

Klorox, you can find a complete list of G3 Fixpack's CORE fixes & tweaks here: http://www.gibberlings3.net/bg2fixpack/docs_core.php

And you may want to wait a day or two--beta 4 is being assembled and should be released soon.

Klorox, you can find a complete list of G3 Fixpack's CORE fixes & tweaks hereYou'll only find documentation of the fixes there. If your curiosity also lies with the tweakish things then you'll find them separated into optional components documented over yonder (http://www.gibberlings3.net/bg2fixpack/docs_obc.php).

I would suggest that your selection will make for rather a good game, yes. On the other hand, as Silverstar notes, you probably won't see many radical changes to the content of the game. (Maybe this is what you want.)

Oh, and have Ease of Use too, it has some good components to make your time less painful.If you're grabbing the G3 Tweak Pack, you won't need Ease of Use.

The page I linked to contains all changes made by the core component. It includes several publicly debated changes as well. The definition of "fix" can hardly be applied on these. The explicit tweaks can be found on the page linked by SimDing0.

Have fun!

At this stage, I'd like to express my admiration for your work, Baronius. It's very noble of you to take the time to go round every thread the Fixpack is mentioned in and remind us that you think an unspecified denomination of the fixes aren't. You are truly someone with our best interests at heart. :)

Let's not bring that here, please. I represent no one's interests (sorry), I tell what I think to be true. I feel that players have right to know what they will install. And I'm not the only one who noticed changes that shouldn't be called fixes and shouldn't be in the core component, which could be a place for real fixes.
If you search back for a similar thread, you will see that I even recommended it to the player if he prefers this style of changes. I even remember a reply, where he said that he definitely likes this kind of additions/changes. In the light of these, I don't think it's any harm to give advice to players in any topic. When I'm online for some time, I usually check all mod-related threads, not just FP-related, in case you haven't noticed it. I'm sorry if it's against your "interests", but I think truth never causes more harm than good.

I represent no one's interests I think truth never causes more harm than good.Yeh, it's a good sentiment. But given that:

a) The "truth" of what the mod does is already transparently documented.

and

b) In spite of asserting that your case is already proven and employing phrases such as "we know", you've consistently declined to justify exactly what you think is a tweak when invited to do so here, at G3, or on your own forum.

I can't help thinking there's something sinister at work.

I'm sure I'm wrong, but here comes the appeal again: If you think there's a fix included in the fixpack that shouldn't be, I believe your time would be better spent explaining specifically which one and why not, rather than opening every Fixpack thread you can find and reiterating that we're doing something which is utterly horrible, but the exact nature of which is inexplicably secret. As indeed one of the threads on this very forum illustrates, it gets results.

It's not about documenting what the mod does. The Core documentation is very long. I found questionable parts, so did Felinoid. As for my opinion, I've already expressed it on the official Fixpack forum: put the ambigious, subjective "fixes" to a different component.

You exactly do what CamDawg, i.e. that if someone expresses doubts anywhere outside G3, you come with the blurb "you're invited to the Fixpack forum to tell your thoughts there". As I've said above, I've told everything at G3 already, yet you keep coming with the aforementioned blurb. And this "concrete examples" stuff. Felinoid provided some in an SP thread, I also mentioned others somewhere but CamDawg refused all of them. But this is not the main problem. You seem to be the prisoner of these "concrete examples" (or perhaps you just use it to avoid the actual questions), and cannot abstract. The G3 thread, as well as other threads, reflect this a lot. Although I wasn't the only one who tried to explain it to you, you simply refused to interpret the doubts and comments regarding your principles of defining and handling fixes.

Something sinister at work? This is funny. Then why would I provide a 1 GigaByte mirror for Gibberlings3 mods for free and with direct FTP access if I wanted to cause harm to the site? Can you imagine how much bandwidth it can use? *Sigh* nevermind. I can't imagine why you keep looking for a non-existing, bloody competition between mods/sites when there isn't any. Or perhaps you have something entirely different reason, which is unknown to me.

Or you're simply upset that someone dares to criticize it and you've no valid arguments. (Which imples that it's exactly you who worry about your mod's popularity statistics. It's a pointless thing to do IMO.) You made yourselves believe that as the "mainstream", you *know* and *do* what players want -- exactly, always, under any circumstances. Perhaps you could accept feedback of "I wouldn't like this..." type as well, and not just "Please add this as well...". Just an advice.

So no, guys, he doesn't have any examples...

You fail to understand that it's not about *concrete* cases, no matter how many I can or I can't list. It's a matter of principle.

But alright, you asked for it. Some examples for subjective changes, which aren't strict fixes:

http://forums.blackwyrmlair.net/index.php?s=&showtopic=2052&view=findpost&p=17928
- Consumed Keys. Illogical. Comfortable for players, but not realistic. So why to call it a fix? Why can't it be in a third component (something "between" Core fixes and Optional-but-Cool)?

- Changed Alignments stuff
Many subjective things, obviously. There is a logic in them, but still subjective. One example can be found in the Blucher quote below. Furthermore, e.g. you change alignments on the incorrect assumption of "everyone who attacks the party is evil". And so on. Again, I don't say these shouldn't be in Fixpack. I just say these are not Core fixes.

- Give Triple Multi-Classes Unique HLA Tables
http://www.sorcerers.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/10/5739/2.html#000030
Note: The Racial Maximum issue was addressed meanwhile. (BTW as you can see, Felinoid found it, after reading Cam's post which was triggered by me bringing up my doubts at SP, opposing your "interests", and "misrepresenting" fixpack. So I doubt it's always useful if -- after asking to shut up -- you send everyone to Gibberlings3 who intends to form an opinion in a different forum e.g. because he doesn't visit other forums.)

Now quoting Blucher (otherwise a founder of the BG1NPC project):
[..]The Fix Pack is impressive, and obviously a ton of work has been put into it, but it changes way too many things that frankly don't need changing. The aforementioned keys are one.

Another instance where things are changed (needlessly imo) is in the section dealing with alignment fixes. Kish may have considered the Lawful Evil Majordomo to be an oversight, and that's fine for a mod like his; but I'd think a true set of fixes would leave that alone. Besides, we don't really know the heart of the majordomo. He could be evil and it just not ever manifest itself in the game.

I think if you guys are really wanting this to be the new standard in unofficial patches, then it should place an emphasis on significant bugs and errors. The main question should be "what can the Fix Pack leave out?" rather than "what can it include?"
Now, a very very last attempt. A "missing item" or "broken quest" (due to a trigger, not missing content) can be fixed. It's a strict fix to correct a grammar error in a string. On the other hand, when you do something subjective, it's not a strict fix any longer.
The official Fixpack page says about *Core fixes*:
While some bugs are clearly bugs, the team also has a review process for 'gray area' bugs to insure that fixes do not contradict developer intent.Reviews are made by humans. And humans can make mistakes, make incorrect assumptions, or interpret things differently than other people (subjectivity). By adding these to the Core component, players can't choose whether they want to install these or not (except if they decide not to install the mod). I read some ridiculous thread on Fixpack forum which tells that Fixpack could have thousands of components if fixes were separated etc. etc. Nonsense. One more component would be enough. Something to add "subjective" changes. If you really want to add such. (Similarly to Blucher, I feel that you are arbitrarily searching for things that can be "fixed" in a certain way. But it's a matter of taste. Many players prefer these cosmetic, usually subjective, changes, so it's okay. I just say that if you make such, put them to a different component.)

If you don't understand it after all this, and still think I've malicious intent to make a bad reputation to this excellent project, well, then I've nothing to say.

[ October 10, 2006, 22:53: Message edited by: Baronius ]

I had also repeatedly said (and had also offered concrete examples) that G3's BG2 fixpack's alignment changes are incorrect; they are based on the "oversight" mod's invalid logic. (As long as "Oversight" mod is their base, everything will go wrong in respect to alignments, for sure.)

Let players choose for themselves. All I can say is that G3's BG2 fixpack is not recommended for those who are looking for "pure fixes" for their games. Many of the alleged 'fixes' are actually 'tweaks' (albeit mostly inappropriate ones, specially when alignments are concerned).

Baronius, you really made an excellent case for the Fixpack.

Doors consuming keys was somewhere were we listened to concrete feedback, realized we made a mistake, and made changes. Felinoid brought up another concrete example where we got it wrong and it's being changed in the next release. If you provide actionable feedback, we consider it and make changes as appropriate. None of the fixes are hidden and we encourage and listen to feedback. You seem to think you're scoring points because we got something wrong initially, but you're actually bringing up several examples of the methodology working perfectly and as intended.

The alignment changes were written by Kish for Oversight. He's been, by far, the most conservative member of the Fixpack team in terms of including fixes, and warned which bits of Oversight to use and which to avoid. That he's somehow spammed Fixpack with spurious alignment changes is disingenuous and I'm afraid you're going to provide a better argument than 'mostly inappropriate'. Dumping the alignment changes, on balance, is a huge step backward in terms of fixes unless you think Irenicus is CG and otyughs are LG. If a change actually is inappropriate there's no one who wants it out of the Fixpack more than I--we've already made changes within the sphere of alignments and, like anything included, it's open to review. However, as I've mentioned before, 'mostly inappropriate' is not feedback upon which we can act; 'foo.cre shouldn't be changed because X' is.

Giving triple-classes unique HLA tables is in-line with developer intent and is identical to how Baldurdash does it--had you bothered to read the thread. I'm not sure what 'triple-class fix' fubar'd Felinoid's tables but what he's describing is not a part of Fixpack, nor would it ever be.

Blucher's a very biased choice of critic to quote, as he objects to Baldurdash itself as riddled with tweaks. To the surprise of no one, he feels that a project that's much the same as Baldurdash with substantially more fixes is also going too far. Sikret and Baronius are the only ones following Fixpack around chanting 'tweak, tweak, tweak.' It's unfortunate that, rather than participating in one of the very few cross-community mod projects, BW declined the original invitation from almost a year-and-a-half ago, and continues to refuse to participate despite a standing invitation. Five of the six other sites accepted, and the only other declinee is now producing mods that expect Fixpack to be installed. You may find that participating in the process yields better results, as Felinoid, Rabain, and others can attest.

And yes, breaking the Fixpack into multiple components would be horrific. We've already had people object to things which are clearly bugs (such as Irenicus-as-demon in the finale spouting ogre lines) so I have no doubt that once we start making one or two things optional the rest will be requested. I refer anyone to the pinned I *HATE* this fix! (http://forums.gibberlings3.net/index.php?showtopic=7890) thread where we go to great lengths to assist folks removing fixes they don't like.

Here are your concrete examples again:
pirsea01
pirsea02
pirsea03

Why on earth these three creatures' alignments should have changed to Lawful Evil? Andyr said that murderous pirates must be evil! How on earth do you know that they are murderous (specially these three ones who were just hidden in SeaBounty tavern)? Just because they have red circles beneath them?! And who has said that only Evil creatures can commit murder or can commit crimes? And why "Lawful"?!

Do you call this sort of changes "Fixes" or a "Tweaks"? If you call them "fixes" we really have nothing more to discuss. And if you agree that these changes are at best "Tweaks", then why do you complain when we say that they are Tweaks?

These are just examples, similar cases are many in the fixpack. Fixing just these three creatures' alignments won't solve the problem. The root of the problem, as I have said before, is the Oversight mod's logic.

PS: Actually, "pirsea02" is the .cre file name for more than one creature. It designates the three lesser pirates in the tavern. But this is a side point.

[ October 11, 2006, 01:18: Message edited by: Sikret ]

Let's follow this logically: the three pirates in the Sea's Bounty, that traffic in illegal materials (you know, piracy), hiding from Amnish authorities, that do not have any hesitation to attack anyone entering their area because they've been discovered (presumably because they value their illicit profits over the lives of interlopers), should be true neutral? Uh, no. If you wish to make the case they should be chaotic or neutral evil, go for it.

See how easy this is?

Then, you at least seem to admit that making them "lawful" was wrong. You also seem to admit that there are more than one option for their alignments. That much is enough to show that you have tweaked them (and not fixed). Not to mention that none of your conjectures about what they might have done (= crimes) warrant that they should be evil.

Andyr said that murderous pirates must be evil!Actually, I didn't say that. I said either that I would not expect them to be Good, or that I would expect them to be Evil; I don't recall exactly which. But I definitely did not say as you claim.

I invited you to make a case on the lawful-chaotic axis, as evil is clearly correct.

You'll need to provide reasons (using reason, not semantics) why they're true neutral and changing them to anything else is a tweak, otherwise you're already conceding it's a bug fix and we're simply debating the best way to fix them.

If willingness to murder someone entering your hideout (without provoking you and under no threat yet) isn't indicative of evil you'll never be satisfied with any alignment changes, ever. Based on their location and the events that occur in the Sea's Bounty (esp. Barg) it's likely they're involved in slave trafficking.

LOL, sometimes I wonder if the game-makers put as much thought into the game as some of you guys! :)

If willingness to murder someone entering your hideout (without provoking you and under no threat yet) isn't indicative of evil you'll never be satisfied with any alignment changes, ever.
This is exactly the invalid "Oversight" mod's logic which I referred to earlier: "Every one who attacks must be evil."

No, I don't agree that it warrants being evil. (let alone lawful evil!)

@Andyr:
You said that you expected them to be detected by "Detect Evil" and to take damage from "Holy smite".

I invited you to make a case on the lawful-chaotic axis, as evil is clearly correct.

You'll need to provide reasons (using reason, not semantics) why they're true neutral and changing them to anything else is a tweak, otherwise you're already conceding it's a bug fix and we're simply debating the best way to fix them.Ah, so does Sikret *need* to provide reasons? Ridiculous. No, it's you who made the tweak, and it's you who should explain why they're Lawful, for example.

And yes, breaking the Fixpack into multiple components would be horrific. We've already had people object to things which are clearly bugs (such as Irenicus-as-demon in the finale spouting ogre lines) so I have no doubt that once we start making one or two things optional the rest will be requested. You didn't understand me, unfortunately. I suggested one more component, to unit *all* changes that are subjective and/or fixes in the wider interpretation of the word, and anything that falls into this category. No more categories are required: Core fixes, the new category and finally Optional-but-Cool covers all.

It's unfortunate that, rather than participating in one of the very few cross-community mod projects, BW declined the original invitation from almost a year-and-a-half ago, and continues to refuse to participate despite a standing invitation. Five of the six other sites accepted,[..]What invitation are you talking about year-and-a-half ago? I don't remember anything concrete, but it's possible that there was one, I just don't remember. BG2 Fixpack isn't 1.5 years old yet, or is it? Yu must be speaking of something else, I guess.

But it's a very sad fact that you pretend many of your hosted projects to be "community projects", as if others' projects weren't such. Every project which has a public forum and an enthusiastic author (or developer team), *is* a community project, as I'm sure there is no mod developer who would say "No we don't need additional help, we've lots of time". Now after reading your post, it has become obvious that you've been using this "community project" thing as a disguise, which you unfortunately abuse a lot. The projects you call "community projects" are like any other project (with the exception that they have more developers, usually), they have project leaders/coordinators who make the decisions and not through polls where the "community" (all contributors etc.) vote. And this is okay in this way, but please stop this "community" and "project is open to everyone" hipocricy. Every longer project is open to feedback and help (unless it's a surprise mod or anniversary mod).

If by "community project" you mean "project where the modders of many sites are working", I can second that there are such, but again this can't be explicitly determined, as it's already pointless and unnecessary to strictly connect modders to sites. If I go to a mod site and post in a mod forum, I provided feedback so I helped the mod. And?

If you say that BWL is not supporting the community, not joining the "process", here are just two examples:
WTP's Community Assets -- offers tons of downloadable support material for modders Dragon's Hoard -- a hosting place with web-based interface to every modder, for freePlus our tools, tutorials etc. An isolated site would keep them in secret, I guess.
And to those who would think I have any problem with G3 mods by principle: no, I don't. In fact, I'm a contributor (tool-builder) of the BG1NPC project, hosted at G3. BG1NPC is one of the "community projects" (i.e. which has many developers from many sites, if CamDawg wants to define it in this way).

Five of the six other sites accepted, and the only other declinee is now producing mods that expect Fixpack to be installed. You may find that participating in the process yields better results[..]Sorry, but this is what we refuse. You basically say "come join the mainstream, it's the best for you". Just like BWL has done in the past and up to the present day, we gladly help when needed, and offer our technical resources as well as modding skills and experience. But by "partipating in the process", you mean it's compulsory to follow what you dictate. The complete 120% compatibility (which would have greatly decreased the quality of mods such as Improved Anvil) and e.g. the obligatory use of Fixpack. Sorry, modding is a hobby and for fun, and BWL supports creativity and innovation, but not necessarily the "mainstream". In the near past, SimDing0 asked me to put pressure on Vlad to make his mods support Fixpack instead. And he was not the only person who expected me to (ab)use my administrator position to force mainstream will on certain BWL modders. No guys, this kind of "violence" and idiocy has no place here.
When Improved Anvil was released, you expected Sikret to set everything in the way you like it because it would be compatible with mods of the "community" (i.e. your smaller projects which are installed together and thus strictly require full weidu-compatibility), another example how you abuse the name of the "community" to reach your own interests, to support the mainstream, the mod portfolio of your site. Several people (assisted by a troll group led by SimDing0) were making pressure on Sikret, often with violent posts. Many people criticized Sikret and myself for our strong and stubborn approach, and I say it was fully worth it: IA has become one of the most popular of the new mods, and reserved its quality. However, when you realised that you couldn't achieve the goal, some of you tried to mire IA. (And yes, you can see not one post at SHS which still says "IA builds in deliberate incompatibilities to your game" and similar). Somewhere, I even read something like "IA is a mod that is designed to break other mods". So when someone "doesn't participate in the process", he should expect reprisals, right?
This "participating in the process yields better results" sentence of you referred to fixpack particularly, but it generally characterizes your attitude, which I described above. Oh, so don't I participate in the process with my comments just because I suggest something you don't like (i.e. a new component to unit certain groups of changes)? I've never expected "Yes sir, we'll do as you ask", since it's your call to decide whether to follow others' advice or not, but you don't even consider it, you seem to refuse it by principle. All in all, I thought participating meant *any* constructive feedback, and not just what *you* prefer.

[ October 11, 2006, 02:14: Message edited by: Baronius ]

You said that you expected them to be detected by "Detect Evil" and to take damage from "Holy smite".Yes, I would expect that a bunch of pirates (who are hostile to the party) on sight, engaged in smuggling in a hidden room run in an inn by the docks run by a man of questionable virtue would be detected by Detect Evil and take damage from Holy Smite. This is quite different from your assertion that, as I quote, "Andyr said that murderous pirates must be evil!".

I do believe that those pirates are probably Evil characters, but did not make the blanket statement you claim.

Err. You argue how everything's subjective, then think we can realisitically create a group of 'subjective' fixes upon which everyone would agree?

I've provided a logical case why pirsea0[1-3]'s original alignment is incorrect. If you believe TN is correct, I don't think asking for a logical argument for TN--or even a logical analysis of where my reasoning fails--is out of hand.

As for the BG2 Fixpack's age, the idea of reviving a community fix effort (specifically japheth's Baldurdash Remix) was really kicked off by Fred S. Richardson back in Feb 2004 in the (by then abandoned by Dorner) Baldurdash forum. Fred disappeared from modding for a stretch after that, but a number of the IRC regulars kept kicking the idea around until the BG2 Fixpack was started as a formal entity in Jan 2005, as the posts in the forum will indicate. Solicitations to participate (http://forums.blackwyrmlair.net/index.php?showtopic=774&hl=) were posted around April '05 for modder participation and playtesters, right around when we hit our fourth alpha build. Three more alphas followed, the project hit beta, and we went public.

Err. You argue how everything's subjective, then think we can realisitically create a group of 'subjective' fixes upon which everyone would agree?Something which is not a strict fix (such as Alignment changes), would go there. Deciding whether something is a strict fix is not a harder (or not a more ambigious) task than finding some logic to arbitrarily change things. I'm pretty sure it would work if people could share their opinion about where they would like the given change. Three components is more than two, and there is little reason to request additional ones. Those who are not happy with a fix in the Core component, can vote for moving it to this new one. It obviously opens many more possibilities if there is three of something, instead of two. If it was a "community" project, more people could vote in the "strategic" matters (such as a new component), yet currently it's you and a few other people who determine these things.

Solicitations to participate were posted around April '05 for modder participation and playtesters, right around when we hit our fourth alpha build. Three more alphas followed, the project hit beta, and we went public.I see, so you call that thread an invitation. It can be, why not. But it's a "bit" exaggerating to explicitly say that "BW declined" it:
It's unfortunate that, rather than participating in one of the very few cross-community mod projects, BW declined the original invitation from almost a year-and-a-half ageThe topic was there. BW is visited and used by many modders. I can't know who decided to contribute or who didn't after reading that thread.

This "declined the invitation" [composed in a public thread] approach confirms what I've said: you fancy the IE modding world as a set of sites where all sites have determined members, and if you compose a public thread to ask for testers for a mod and no one replies, you consider it as "BW declined" it. If your "community" definition was more than hipocrisy, you wouldn't be thinking and speaking in this way.

[ October 11, 2006, 02:48: Message edited by: Baronius ]

This "declined the invitation" [composed in a public thread] approach confirms what I've said: you fancy the IE modding world as a set of sites where all sites have determined members, and if you compose a public thread to ask for testers for a mod and no one replies, you consider it as "BW declined" it.We managed to snag interested parties from everywhere save CoM and BW with that announcement. The 'declined' bit is really more that every time we've tried to invite participation from you, Vlad, or Sikret since then we get, at best, a long-winded rant about how we're mainstream and are leading some grand Fixpack conspiracy or, at worst, a personal attack:

If your "community" definition was more than hipocrisy, you wouldn't be thinking and speaking in this way.edit: This chunk was edited in after my reply:

Deciding whether something is a strict fix is not a harder (or not a more ambigious) task than finding some logic to arbitrarily change things. I'm pretty sure it would work if people could share their opinion about where they would like the given change. Three components is more than two, and there is little reason to request additional ones. Those who are not happy with a fix in the Core component, can vote for moving it to this new one. It obviously opens many more possibilities if there is three of something, instead of two. If it was a "community" project, more people could vote in the "strategic" matters (such as a new component), yet currently it's you and a few other people who determine these things.I think this is an excellent idea. The best way to facilitate something like this would be to open our process completely, document everything we change, encourage feedback as much as possible, and act upon it. Rather than just me deciding, we could form some type of 'team' that would also help decide what's a fix as well as public input.

We managed to snag interested parties from everywhere save CoM and BW with that announcement. The 'declined' bit is really more that every time we've tried to invite participation from you, Vlad, or Sikret since then we get, at best, a long-winded rant about how we're mainstream and are leading some grand Fixpack conspiracy[..]I've said earlier that there is no conspiracy. It's just occasional shameless, egoistic behaviour. And sorry, but your acts and posts often reflect that you feel you & co. is *the* mainstream, and your attitude is often dictating. Anyone who has a different opinion is "against the community". This expresses your aspect well:
You may find that participating in the process yields better results[..]What kind of *results*? Your compliment perhaps? Or what? And as I've already asked, isn't it feedback when I suggest a new component, isn't it participation in the "process"? It's not, because you don't agree with it? Nice.

And again, this "parties from everywhere". Believe me, you didn't get parties from SHS, PPG, or anywhere. You got people or groups of people, individual modders who decided to participate. This "BW declined" covers absolutely nothing, as BWL is not a legal personality with a representative etc.

Give up and forget your site-based classification of the community! Calm down (or "chill, man" or how it's said?), it's about fun! Instead of arguing over whether a damned pirate is evil or not, do some actually productive modding work! The Delainy project was what indirectly founded Gibberlings3, I'm sure many players would welcome its release. ;)

Yes.

(The above was in response to Klorox's original question.)

:p

Sea Bounty pirate alignment analysis -

LG: Yeah...no. :shake:
NG: Questionable, mostly along CG "for the greater good" one-time thing.
CG: Smuggling to help others? Probably doubtful.
LN: Sincerely doubt it. Even the "strong convictions" type of LN is a bit lacking, though someone who put a lot of thought into it could surely find a way.
TN: Maybe there's too much good in the area. Maybe they just like nice things. Maybe they made friends with the wrong people. TN motivations are often hard to find.
CN: Could really be applied to all one-dimensional characters on the "one-time" argument. It's possible for a CN to do just about anything at any one time. The only way to exclude CN would be to have enough information to actually form an idea on their personalities, in which case you don't need to use exclusion anyway.
LE: Decent alignment for smugglers in an organized ring, which is a possibility based on what the captain says when you discover them.
NE: Best alignment for generic smugglers. They want stuff and don't care about the law.
CE: Possible argument for bloodthirstyness, but really, anyone would go after someone who had discovered a secret that could get them killed. Smuggling usually has rather harsh penalties.

In all, that puts 5 out of 9 rather possible (IMO), settled thusly:
- - -
- x x
x x x
Which makes gives the impression of a central point hovering between the four x's in a square, but adjusted a little lower to make LE closer than CG. That would make the two closest ones NE and CE.

Then there's the possibility of mixed alignment groups. Perhaps the mage is a bit different than the others. But that's probably getting a bit picky for such one-dimensional characters.

And finally, what were they changed from? If they were changed from an alignment that they could easily be, I'd regard that more as a tweak than a fix. Some things do deserve changing as a fix, like monsters that have listed alignments (ex. otyugh), or important NPCs (Irenicus, Bodhi, etc.), but changing the alignments of all the peons I tread over without thinking...only if they're really off (like if the "murderers" Irenicus sends after you in his Spellhold escape were Good).

They are true Neutral in the original game; however, the main question is not whether TN is the best alignment choice for them. The main question is whether LE is the *only* possible alignment choice for them or not. If LE is not the only rational choice, then it has been chosen arbitrarily and this much is enough to show that the change has been a tweak (rather than a fix).

Of course, I believe that LE is one of the worst choices and not even a rational one, but I leave this part for now.

Believe me, you didn't get parties from SHS, PPG, or anywhere. You got people or groups of people, individual modders who decided to participate. This "BW declined" covers absolutely nothing, as BWL is not a legal personality with a representative etc.I would tend to agree that most modders are active at several sites--I can easily be classified as, say, a G3 person, a PPG person, and I was even a global moderator at the precursor to SHS for a few years.

BWL modders, though, tend to be more insular and form collaborations on fewer sites. Sekrit posted at SP recently that he doesn't browse other modding community sites, and Vlad has repeatedly said he is not interested in making his mods compatible with those of others, so I think that BWL, contrary to your opinions, actually provides the best case of a cohesive singular community which does things by itself.

Sikret: which alignment do you think they should be, then? Is leaving them TN appropriate just because people cannot decide which of LE, NE or CE, say, is more appropriate? Is, for example, a LE or NE pirate who might have been intended to be CE really much worse than leaving them TN and thus unaffected by spells which you might reasonably expect to harm the pirate? Ingame, the Good-Evil divide is much more important than the Law-Chaos one.

Poor Klorox.

He asked a simple question... and suddenly got a war at hand ;)

Andyr,

It's true that I don't browse other sites. It's because of my limited time. However, I have already contributed a few new things specially in respect to "scripting" to IESDP project hosted at G3 site; but unfortunately, every thing I sent were simply ignored under the pretext that I had sent them to the wrong forum (despite the fact that those people responsible for IESDP actualy saw and read my posts). Hence, even BWL modders did help, but they were ignored for unknown or unstated reasons (even though I may be able to guess things).

As for the alignments, I think the best thing to do is to shift the alignment changes to the "optional" installation category. And please note that these pirates' case was just an example. My main objection is to the Oversight mod's logic in respect to alignments. we may eventually come to an agreement about these three creatures, but it won't solve the main problem.

@Ironhawk Skylord:


Poor Klorox.

He asked a simple question... and suddenly got a war at hand
:lol:
No, it's not really a war. Despite our disagreements with Andyr and Cam, we have good relations with each other and we respect each other.

Fortunately, You haven't seen the real wars. For example, when the horde of trolls were attacking my mod (Improved Anvil), they wrote all sorts of insults and lies about the mod you could imagine. They even sent profane and sexual insults when they ran out of any possible rational answer to our arguments.

[ October 12, 2006, 01:44: Message edited by: Sikret ]

Oh, has anyone mentioned that awful Baldurdash rogue stone plot which is most definitely not any sort of fix?


My main objection is to the Oversight mod's logic in respect to alignments.Right, but again, the example you've provided is very weak. If you or Baronius would like to go round every Fixpack thread reminding people that "this mod makes pirates evil!!! wtf?" then that's cool with me, but your accusation that it's just riddled with tweaks continues to be based on the most tenuous of evidence.

Instead of arguing over whether a damned pirate is evil or not, do some actually productive modding work!That's right, Cam! Instead of trying to improve your mod, why don't you just go away and IMPROVE YOUR MOD?!

Heh. I'd love to but someone keeps following me around wherever I post chanting 'tweak, tweak, tweak'. An accusation that I'm wasting time is especially funny since I've updated/released eight projects over the past four weeks and helped on nine others.

BWL modders, though, tend to be more insular and form collaborations on fewer sites. Sekrit posted at SP recently that he doesn't browse other modding community sites, and Vlad has repeatedly said he is not interested in making his mods compatible with those of others, so I think that BWL, contrary to your opinions, actually provides the best case of a cohesive singular community which does things by itself.Partially, you are right when you say BWL is unusual in this respect. It won't follow the dictations of the "mainstream" when its members don't agree, no matter how many trolls will be gathered by SimDing0 to beset BWL.
However, your main point is wrong. First of all, it's not contrary to my opinion what you said, i.e. that BWL is coherent and united. So no matter what the mainstream dictates compatibility-wise, I won't abuse my administrator position to put pressure on any BWL modder, sorry. On the other hand, you are obviously wrong when you try to imply that BWL doesn't try to benefit the community (Yes, the real *community*, and not Fixpack & "mainstream" modders' wishes). It's your call what you believe, but these things remain facts: IESDP and BG1NPC and contributed by at least one BWL member, Community Assets is a huge site dedicated to the whole modder community, BWL released public tools and tutorials for modders, the free DHDC costs a lot of money and so on. Sorry, but these are the facts. (Additionally, it doesn't only support modding community, it helps players as well. E.g. at SP, Sikret and myself gladly make mods, often not just a single item, when players request them. And we don't redirect them "come to bwl forum with your request".) BWL helps the community, without promoting our projects as "community projects" and if someone doesn't agree with us, we don't say "you're not caring about compatibility! Your mod breaks other mods!" or "The best would for you to join the process".

You guys kept saying how much you prefer discussion based on arguments, and now all that SimDing0 you can say is "Right, but again, the example you've provided is very weak". Is this a valid counter-argument? I doubt it. Yeah, this is indeed *weak*. You seem to disprove your own principle.

If someone has been reading this thread, he can notice that CamDawg and SimDing0 argued for their opinion by bringing up Baldurdash. The best defence is the attack, hmm? Too bad that it really has *nothing* to do with this topic and Fixpack directly, just a useless attempt to avoid the need to offer actual arguments. I've seen this only in case of shameless politicians so far. Please don't do it. Furthermore, it can be well seen that SimDing0, in his last post, took out a part of my post from the context, and reacts it as if it had been a standalone statement. Like politicians, again.

Guys, if you can't accept that the problems with Fixpack described here are existing & real and thus unbiased modders like Sikret or myself will *not* disguise anything from the player's eye, at least be so kind and don't accuse us of things we have never done.

Attacking Baldurdash (totally off-topic), telling how weak our arguments are, and demanding examples (pretending to have the mental level of a small child who can't abstract yet) to avoid the question of general principles -- please find something better, as no one will give any credit to your words. If you have no more valid arguments (which is understandable because in this matter the critics regarding Fixpack are justified IMO), please don't try to force and stretch the whole thing -- not beneficial to anyone. Accept that you can't be *always* 100% right. Thank you.


Edit:
but unfortunately, every thing I sent were simply ignored under the pretext that I had sent them to the wrong forum (despite the fact that those people responsible for IESDP actualy saw and read my posts). Hence, even BWL modders did help, but they were ignored for unknown or unstated reasons (even though I may be able to guess things).For those who still don't have guesses: when BWL's public contributions are refused, it's often meant to be a reprisal -- because we still *dare* to support mods like Improved Anvil, Never Ending Journey or Tortured Souls. Instead of asking their authors to find another site for the projects. Tell me, dear readers, should we discontinue to support such works?

[ October 11, 2006, 20:21: Message edited by: Baronius ]

You guys kept saying how much you prefer discussion based on arguments, and now all that SimDing0 you can say is "Right, but again, the example you've provided is very weak". Is this a valid counter-argument? I doubt it. Yeah, this is indeed *weak*. You seem to disprove your own principle....what are you talking about? This is the worst conversation ever. There's practically a whole page of actual arguments from Cam and Andyr prior to my post. Sikret's been responding to them, but you seemed to somehow miss them in favour of talking about how BlackWyrm will never go mainstream and all that stuff.

If anyone here is convinced by these "valid arguments" Baronius has been putting forward--but which I've somehow missed--then I can't be anything but surprised. I'd like to move for some audience participation, since I'm genuinely curious as to whether those paragraphs of rhetoric about how I lead crack teams of trolls and have the mental age of a child are working. :)

Now you're doing two things, the usual word-twisting and implying that I didn't speak truth. First of all, I never said anything about your mental age. I told my opinion about your "tactic" to demand 'concrete examples!!' all the time:
and demanding examples (pretending to have the mental level of a small child who can't abstract yet) to avoid the question of general principles But instead of offering any counter-arguments regarding the general question and principle, you guys always turn the conversation by various things such as "concrete examples!!" or "Baldurdash has that quest too and it's a tweak!!".

"how I lead crack teams of trolls" -- no? So you didn't? Come on, basically everyone in the IE modding world knows your temperament. Furthermore, several users witnessed when you publicly spammed & trolled BWL, when you publicly expressed you follow your own rules instead of BWL's, or when you provoked and insulted all members (not just admins). So it's pointless to imply that I'm talking nonsense when I say that you are trolling if you've no other tool left to achieve your goal. But enough of this, BWL events are not the subject of SP threads.

I ask one thing, again, guys. Please make a last try to realize that BWL modders will *not* follow your dictations and will not disguise the errors of mods just because your or "mainstream's" interests would require it. No matter what you do.

No matter what you do, we will not keep silent with our opinion when we feel that players have right to know it (without having to read hundreds of docs pages). This applies to any mod. You can't show an example where I said it to anyone that "Fixpack is bad" or anything similar, because there isn't any. I say "I recommend Fixpack if ...,", "I recommend BD if..." or "I recommend GreyClan if...". So please do realise that there is no malicious intent here. Please don't make a war on this wonderful forum. I think this discussion is now void.

[ October 11, 2006, 21:49: Message edited by: Baronius ]

Yes, Sim, you've done a decent job at coming off better than Baronius in this thread (though the many cuts and thrusts belie that). But I've seen posts by you here and I've seen posts by Baronius here. And while Baronius's have been well-balanced (with the notable exception of this thread), yours have not. Given what I've seen of your temper, I wouldn't be at all surprised if what Baronius was saying about leading attacks was true. In fact, I even know that what he's saying about your claims on IA has basis in fact as I've seen it myself even in my relatively short stay here.

And like it or not, you do think of yourselves as the mainstream. Though not without reason. Everyone hears about WeiDU first thing when they get into mods. And with complete compatibility with absolutely everything else in the entire world being something of a gold standard for WeiDU mods, that puts you right in the heart of it.

But a even a gold standard isn't a strict rule. Good mods can be made that are incompatible with individual others, that wouldn't be as good if they were made compatible. So trying to make all mods universally compatible, while a decent goal, is not the ultimate goal. Because the ultimate goal is: fun. They're games, after all. The argument can be made that incompatibility doesn't lend itself to fun, trying to figure out which mods you can use with each other, but on the balance, a good mod that causes only a one-mod-to-one-mod conflict is more fun than a crappy mod with no compatibility issues at all.

And this is what sets up the rebellion. Because one way is not the only way, and certainly not always the best way. But contrary to what you may think, it's not a malicious rebellion. (Though with the way things are going...) They're not trying to tear down your way of doing things. They're just trying to do things their own way, and voicing concerns when they have them.

It is this second part that makes them so angry. For while they voice valid concerns, they are dismissed only because they are part of the rebellion. Because they don't do things the way the mainstream tells them they should, that mainstream then only hears attacks in criticism, whether it's constructive or not. You shunt them aside as their own little group doing their own little things when what they are trying to do is contribute in a different way than that which you approve of.

And when they ask to be heard, your response is "join us". Not a simple desire to be together, but a desire to assimilate, to have them play by your rules. And that in turn is an attack on them, on their way of doing things. In the end, your side is the one misinterpreting both the 'attacks' against you and your offers of 'friendship'. Because you simply do not see the other side. You do not understand why they do what they do (don't even bother denying THAT one).

I see two possible outcomes, neither of them palatable:
1. The conflict escalates into outright war. The rebellion will become malicious and both sides will begin attacking each other. The rebellion will be crushed, but interest in modding as a whole will drop dramatically. The beginning of the end for IE modding.
2. Conflicts simmer indefinitely. With the mainstream voluntarily blind to the other side's reasons, they will simply continue to dismiss the other side as oddballs and eventually even leave them alone. The rebellion will gradually become semi-comfortable with this, and will offer their advice alongside the mainstream's (occasionally causing a breakout if a particularly volatile member of either group takes something the wrong way). At some point the two groups may even just ignore each other.

As for a third solution, I think the situation is too far along for it to be at all probable. Reconciliation at this point would likely require generational memory loss. Even given the lowered "life-span" of modders generated by this aggravation, I don't think the IE modding world will outlive the conflict.

honestly, who the **** care how the mod is made as long as it works?

If standards are used in any process, e.g. in industry, it ensures quality is always the same. (Not better. Same.)

I know it very well how important standards are. However, I don't think that they should be compulsory in a non-profit activity as modding which focuses on creativity and fun, primarily. While standards have many advantages, they also restrict developer freedom (hence less errors and problems). Consequently it may limit human creativity and imagination. Which is not wanted in case of mods. Standards are needed, WeiDU is a good one, but let's not attack and despise those authors who don't follow every expectation of the modder majority, of the mainstream. It's their freedom.

An incorrectly written mod will corrupt the game, which is unpleasant, but no one will die or injure, no property and value will be destroyed. Unlike in the reality, where standards are usually compulsory if a company wants a better rank in the market. Certain standards, such as the ones of industrial safety, are compulsory to every company where applicable. No wonder, as the health and lives of workers are at stake. Another good example can be financial standards. And so on.

Guys ,really. You are taking this too far.

I mean look at the subject?

All Klorox was asking was if could he get a good game with the forementioned mods.

And you are making this your personal battlefield? Is it worth it?

Or is there some of you who at least can see it's a little bit funny? ;)

I have a suggestion for you, and please don't rip my head off or suggest where I can put an object roughly the size of Elminster and his hat ;)

Why don't you post some mod-related topics for example:

Baldurdash contra G3 Fixpack

WeiDu contra other methods of modding

or for example

How to make a mod - suggestions

I could imagine it could be pretty exciting to read :)

Or perhaps you already done that? Well I am new so if you have I apologize ;)

But it seems to me you already has duked it out on your respective communities or am I wrong?

Yes, Sim, you've done a decent job at coming off better than Baronius in this thread (though the many cuts and thrusts belie that). But I've seen posts by you here and I've seen posts by Baronius here. And while Baronius's have been well-balanced (with the notable exception of this thread), yours have not. Given what I've seen of your temper, I wouldn't be at all surprised if what Baronius was saying about leading attacks was true. In fact, I even know that what he's saying about your claims on IA has basis in fact as I've seen it myself even in my relatively short stay here.

etc. etc.Yes, we know I'm a very bad person, but I was thinking more of whether you reckon Baronius has justified his role of leading the "tweak! tweak!" procession.

(Incidentally, I'm intrigued as to what I've been posting here that's riled you so. I recall a curt post about non-WeiDU mods, and some amused/bemused argument on my part later, but I don't think I've ever deposited a horde of trolls on your doorstep...?)

I won't abuse my administrator position to put pressure on any BWL modder, sorry. On the other hand, you are obviously wrong when you try to imply that BWL doesn't try to benefit the communityBaronius, I am in no way trying to attack BWL or tell you how to run it. I only pointed out that people who have mods hosted at BWL tend to spend little time modding at other sites.

You mentioned Vlad's statement, and it's usually quoted in negative context. (In fact, it somewhat became the synonym of the "disobedient modder", who "should be exiled from the community".) But if you have listed it as a fact, it's okay (I think you did). However, I also needed to point out that certain things you referred to as things contrary to my opinion, actually didn't have any contradiction. My reply following the quote from your post was directed at more modders actually, to make it clear how BWL's public relations look like.

SimDing0: If you still think that it's about the "tweak tweak procession", you indeed don't understand the point. I advise you to re-read Felinoid's post.

Yes, we know I'm a very bad person, but I was thinking more of whether you reckon Baronius has justified his role of leading the "tweak! tweak!" procession. Yes, I'm sure we should all be shocked and dismayed that someone whose advice was arbitrarily rejected might bring it up again. Now, I haven't seen the badgering you refer to, but then again I only browse SP, RPG Dungeon, and CoM (and only certain subforums on the last two). And to be perfectly honest, between time constraints and the atmospheres I've encountered browsing some other forums, I have little intention of branching out. However, if you could link some of this following-you-around, I'd be much obliged and might be able to provide some of the feedback you desire.
(Incidentally, I'm intrigued as to what I've been posting here that's riled you so. I recall a curt post about non-WeiDU mods, and some amused/bemused argument on my part later, but I don't think I've ever deposited a horde of trolls on your doorstep...?) Actually, I was referring mostly to threads in which you've overreacted to simple statements, or gone on the defensive the instant anyone questioned you. You've never been anything but pleasant when not confronted, but when you are...

Yes, I'm sure we should all be shocked and dismayed that someone whose advice was arbitrarily rejected might bring it up again.This definititely falls into the "I just can't believe it!" category. You actually think something's been arbitrarily rejected, in spite of a whole page of argument to the contrary and Cam's constant reminders that he doesn't reject things without reason? And what's more, you're so sure of it that you can afford to be sarcastic? Looks like I arbitrarily, uh, lose. Sigh.

Regardless of how much of a wally I think Baronius is being, you will not catch me rejecting mod feedback based on the source. (Looking closely, you might observe that a number of the Fixpack contributors think I'm an *******... wow, it censors "*******"? Anyhow, this does not preclude my working on the project with them and acknowledging their viewpoints.) I consider providing useful feedback to be a favour rather than an attack, and I know Cam feels the same way. This is partly why we've tried to coerce Baronius and Sikret into defending their stance--conflict helps refine the solution. However, all I can really take away from this is that I need to abstract into reading people's minds and that you've created an unfortunate image of us suppressing feedback from some poor "rebellion", which is a great shame.

[ October 12, 2006, 11:03: Message edited by: SimDing0 ]

Actually CamDawg didn't offer any sound or valid argument. all he said were two things:

First, he repeated the Oversight mod' logic that everyone who attacks the party onsight is evil. We have refuted this repeatedly and there is no need to repeat it again.

Second, he tried to put the burden of proof on our side by asking us to show that TN was the correct alignment. As mentioned before, this was very ridiculous, because the burden of proof is actually on the BG2 fixpack team to show us that LE is the only correct alignment. Otherwise, as stated before, the alignment was chosen arbitrarily and can at best fall in the field of "tweaks" (rather than fixes).

Asking for more concrete examples is just a jest, because human's mind is normally capabale of assessing abstract rules without repeatedly asking for concrete examples. Only primitive and simple minds may repeatedlt ask for concrete examples.

The bottom line is that many of the BG2 fixpacks alleged fixes are actuallt tweaks and the fixpack is not recommended to players who are looking for pure fixes.

First, he repeated the Oversight mod' logic that everyone who attacks the party onsight is evil. We have refuted this repeatedly and there is no need to repeat it again.No, I provided a number of reasons--you've just chosen to focus upon this one to the exclusion of others. Not only that you're leaving out the critical bit there, too: the pirates would rather kill interlopers because it threatens their commercial enterprise, from which we conclude they value human life so little that they're willing to kill with very little provocation. All characters who attack the party on sight are not evil and the alignment fixes reflect this. To try and say this is some broad principle that we're applying is disingenuous and wrong.

For me, the most disappointing aspect of all this is that we really do have a project with an open process and lots of contributors, and it's being actively used by two people as a 'wedge' issue to try and create a sense of 'us vs. them' mentality. It's not feedback of 'I think it contains tweaks', it's feedback of 'we know it contains more tweaks' or opinions-stated-as-fact like Sikret's post above. As Sim said a few posts up, I have no problem with Bar following me around on every thread with 'I think it sucks because...' instead of the pseudo-factual statement of 'we know it contains more tweaks'.

I usually don't engage in threads like this and I've been thinking long and hard about why this one has really struck a chord in me. It really reminds me of the bad old days when Neil, Ken, jcompton, and all sorts of modders would get into huge fights over just about everything, large and small. The 'silo mentality' prevailed. After TeamBG, at least four other sites were started because, frankly, everyone didn't get along. Regardless of who was right or wrong, the net results were always the same: projects and efforts would have been much better if everyone could have set aside their egos and worked together. I don't think a better example exists than BGT and Tutu--the original BGT author didn't want to work with the Tutu folks because they were from another site. Think of all the modding efforts that have been wasted running essentialy parallel projects, fixing the same bugs, and porting mods for one to the other (and supporting them). As someone who worked on both, it fills me with utter frustration that so much time was wasted and how much better the platform could be.

We've had a real nice stretch of everyone getting along. The silo mentality is gone, more folks have more projects scattered across forums, and in general there's just been a lot more cooperation. The result has been a lot of new mods, a general increase in their quality, and they work together nicely. The goal is not to 'assimilate' or 'oppress' other viewpoints--I'd be happy with, at best, simple cooperation or, at worst, live and let live. It's their perogative to act and say as they wish and no one has said otherwise.

But we're not going to act upon feedback in the form of unsupported assertions or contentions that X is wrong without logical support. You've already seen examples where we've received reasonable feedback that something is wrong and changed it. If Bar and Sikret were to provide the same, their feedback might result in changes as well--instead we get cherry picking of posts and the whole 'the mainstream is tryig to oppress us' routine when we ask for a logical rebuttal to our arguments.

the pirates would rather kill interlopers because it threatens their commercial enterprise, from which we conclude they value human life so little that they're willing to kill with very little provocation.
This was also replied to.

Even Neutral criminals might do the same and it doesn't warrant that they are evil. When you breach the walls of their hideout, it is natural that they react. They see you as enemies (red circle) in the same way that you see them as enemies. Who says that only evil characters can be envolved in that sort of commercial enterprise?

Moreover, the main question was whether LE is the *only* possible alignment or not. It is not! Hence, you have chosen LE (among all other possibilities) quite arbitrarily. This much is enough to show that you have tweaked their alignments (rather than fixing them), because fixing requires no arbitrary decision making.

You're cherry picking again. They're involved in illegal activites, with a high probablity that those activities include slave trading. All things considered, they're evil.

because fixing requires no arbitrary decision making.Demonstrably false. If you actually used this standard, you wouldn't recommend anything other than the official patch.

Viconia lacks a proficiency star; as a cleric of level X she should have five pips total but only has four. Where does that missing pip go? Saying that we don't know for sure where the developers wanted the extra pip does not invalidate the fact that the missing pip is a bug, or that we're going to have to make a decision where to place it. If we were to exclude anything that falls into this situation, the Fixpack--and for that matter, Baldurdash or any previous bug fixing efforts--would quickly approach the size of zero bytes.

I assert that TN is incorrect for the reasons I've stated; that you think the pirates might truly be NE or CE instead of our choice of LE doesn't invalidate my assertion than TN is incorrect. You'll have to show that they are TN to back up your claim of tweak, otherwise we're simply arguing over the best way to fix a known bug.

I think this thread at least showed that your claim of being open to criticisms was nothing but a joke.

Let's leave it right now. Both sides said what they needed to say. You are just repeating the same old method of attacking Baldurdash instead of defending your position. I have nothing to add to my previous arguments and I see them as conclusively valid and sound.

On the contrary, I think I've shown that I'm more than willing to patiently engage my critics and listen to them. That a compelling argument never materialized is not a reflection upon that.

Yes, you just keep patiently playing with words. When you are not willing to admit such obvious errors in your work, how do you expect us to help you on more controversial issues?

I'm more than willing to stand on my record as to whether I accept criticism/feedback and whether I'm willing to admit where I've screwed up.

As a user I'm mostly interested in a true "minimalist" set of fixes. And questions like that of the pirates worry me. And yes, I do think that there are tweaks in baldurdash as well. But issues like that of the pirates worry me.

On the question of the pirates I don't think either of you has stated the burden of proof correctly. To me the burden of proof is not to show that LE is the only possible alignment for the pirates, nor to show that LE is a better alignment than TN. The question that needs to be addressed is "Is TN a reasonable alignment for the pirates." If TN is a reasonable alignment, making them LE is a tweak. If TN is not a reasonable argument for them than making them LE is indeed a fix.

This is obviously subjective and the decision on what's a fix and what's a tweak always will be. But to me the arguments as to why TN is an unreasonable alignment for the pirates are unconvincing. (Although I think CG is plausible - if the authorities have very high tariffs to protect local producers or something - and we have no way to know that. And CG means I think that society is basically all about opressing people.)

They are engaged in illegal activity. To me this basically means that they aren't LG or LN. Perhaps they are involved in slavery. But there are all sorts of reasons why TN NPCs might be incolved in smuggling. At the very least it's worth pointing out the Saemon Havarian is true neutral in the game.

Ultimately I don't care about the pirates alignment. What I care about is understanding where the project (fixpack or baldurdash) draws the line between a tweak and a fix. And because my tastes are very conservative I'm using baldurdash. In the end there is no objective answer to what's a tweak and what's a fix.

If TN is a reasonable alignment, making them LE is a tweak. If TN is not a reasonable argument for them than making them LE is indeed a fix.Concur. I think this is what Cam's been trying to say too.

They are engaged in illegal activity. To me this basically means that they aren't LG or LN. Perhaps they are involved in slavery. But there are all sorts of reasons why TN NPCs might be incolved in smuggling. At the very least it's worth pointing out the Saemon Havarian is true neutral in the game.Saemon Havarian favours escape over combat. The pirates here clearly have no qualms about fighting you: they don't even grace you with a dialogue.

To take a "real life" scenario, if you are exploring some caves--perhaps you enjoy stalagtites--and a disgruntled smuggler shoots you in the face, would you contend that he is a fairly harmless neutral fellow?

And because my tastes are very conservative I'm using baldurdash.Let's set aside, for an instant, whether the alignment choices are, in fact, correct.

One of the points we've been trying to make is that Baldurdash is, if anything, vastly less conservative than the Fixpack. As I mention earlier, there's the rogue stone plot it introduces which is clearly beyond the realms of bugfixes. (Fixpack does not include this.) The key difference is that the Fixpack has enjoyed Baronius and Sikret waxing lyrical since its release, while nobody has cast a similar eye over everyone's favourite Baldurash.

I'm aware that a newer project is bound to attract a greater degree of criticism, and for this I'm glad--it helps weed out erroneous fixes--but I can't help feeling that "because my tastes are very conservative I'm using baldurdash" is simply falling into a trap that Baronius has established for reasons unknown. Even if the Fixpack includes arbitrary tweaks to alignment, which I maintain that it does not, I still recommend it as a more "conservative" option than Baldurdash. The notion that spurious alignment changes are somehow worse than including an openly arbitrary quest confuses me. Maybe I should start promoting Quest Pack as a fixpack--it doesn't change anyone's alignment. :)

I second what ister says. I doubt most people notice what alignment the pirates are as they are being crushed under the bootheel of a bhaal spawn. And considering this is a game where a lawful good cleric of lathender can murder townsfolk, then make a arbitary donation at a temple to raise his reputation, the pirates do not have to be evil.

You actually think something's been arbitrarily rejected, in spite of a whole page of argument to the contrary and Cam's constant reminders that he doesn't reject things without reason? True enough. "Ignored" seems a much more appropriate term now that I think about it.
I consider providing useful feedback to be a favour rather than an attack, and I know Cam feels the same way. I've already addressed this and been ignored. It is feedback and not an attack; you are simply misinterpreting it because of the source.
This is partly why we've tried to coerce Baronius and Sikret into defending their stance--conflict helps refine the solution. They have done so. You ignored them. The lot of you (both sides) really seem to have gotten rather good at talking past each other, which is another part of the problem I outlined.
You'll have to show that they are TN to back up your claim of tweak, otherwise we're simply arguing over the best way to fix a known bug. Wrong. All we have to prove is that it's possible. Now, I have no real objection to them being LE; it certainly fits better than TN. (Though I think not as well as others, that's your choice and ultimately not the point.) But it does belong in the area of tweaks because they could be TN. There are any number of reasons why TN characters would choose to smuggle (three of which are in my alignment analysis on the previous page). Not to mention that two of your assertions to attempt to prove that they are evil are patently false.
They're involved in illegal activites, with a high probablity that those activities include slave trading. All things considered, they're evil. Two things wrong with this. The first is: Where the heck did that idea come from? Of all the times I've encountered them, I have not once thought that they might be slavers. Especially considering that all you find in their hideout is gems (frequently smuggling material) and gold. No slaves.

The second: more of a qualm about slavery not necessarily being treated as evil depending on the society they came from. Were the Founding Fathers evil because they owned slaves? I sincerely doubt it. Was the entirety of the South evil because they fought for it? I refuse to believe a blanket statement like that. The same can be applied to pirates who come from a place where slavery is similarly commonplace. Brynnlaw, for example, with its numerous 'courtesans' and even the little kid who steals a few gold from you for his master. Of course, this whole thing becomes moot if they aren't involved in slavery.
The pirates here clearly have no qualms about fighting you: they don't even grace you with a dialogue. Um, yes they do. The Sea's Bounty captain's exact words are, "What?! Some lout has discovered our hide-out, here, has <HESHE>? Blast! I paid that bloody Thumb good money for secrecy! Kill the bloody spy, mates! I'll have no word of this leaking out!" While this could indicate little value for others' lives, it could also simply indicate value for their own. The punishment for smuggling in medieval times was often death.

I've listened to Sikret's arguments and found them lacking--certainly not the same as ignoring them. I sincerely hope that they (or anyone, really) goes through and puts all of the Fixpack changes to similar scrutiny as the end result can only be a better Fixpack. As irked as I am by statements such as 'we all know it's tweaks' I'm thrilled we've progressed to specific examples.

All we have to prove is that it's possible. The big problem with this idea and others in this vein--"you should only change what you know is developer intent for sure" is a common parallel--is that at its logical conclusion you can not change anything. Irenicus is coded CG at the Tree of Life; perhaps he donated a few million gold at the Temple of Rilifane on his way through Suldenesselar or adopted a few thousand kittens. The LG bandits that hold Jaheira ransom may be on their way home from the Amnish Law Enforcement charity ball and are just drunk. Perhaps the LN paladin that's sent by the Order to help you clear out Bodhi's lair is really a Helmite sleeper agent who's been faking his divine paladin abilities. Maybe the NG otyugh in the opening dungeon is really (and I mean really) good with kids.

Kish used the same standard that Bioware used in BG--assign alignments based on how they act in the game. (And just in case anyone missed it the first time around: evil alignments are not assigned to someone just because they attack the party.) Anything else is speculation and can be used to justify anything.

To those who are interested in this topic: please don't be frightened when you notice the length of this post. It has a lot of inserted quotes. I did my best and tried to summarize my points, to provide as constructive suggestions to Fixpack developers as possible.

Ultimately I don't care about the pirates alignment. What I care about is understanding where the project (fixpack or baldurdash) draws the line between a tweak and a fix. And because my tastes are very conservative I'm using baldurdash. I second what ister says. I doubt most people notice what alignment the pirates are as they are being crushed under the bootheel of a bhaal spawn. And considering this is a game where a lawful good cleric of lathender can murder townsfolk, then make a arbitary donation at a temple to raise his reputation, the pirates do not have to be evil.Absolutely. Such changes affect the game slightly or not at all, the player practically won't notice anything. CamDawg played with words again when he posted that I said he had wasted his time. If someone checks my post, it can be seen that all I expressed is that working on another project with more visible signs in the game is more useful in my opinion. Of course if he enjoys it and thinks it to be right, I don't have any objections, I just think it makes less sense than any other modding activity.

Fixpack's development tends to follow the principle of "Let's find more and more things that we can fix in some way". Blucher pointed it out that it would be better if the research (or bug-hunting) would focus on finding *significant* bugs. It's more difficult than spotting meaningless (and usually ambigious) things, for two major reasons:
1. Most of these have already been found and fixed, obviously
2. It requires much more time and more complex methods to search for such issues in a systematic way.
Even CamDawg admits it on the Gibberlings3 forum:
The nice thing about the little bits like portrait icons and usabilities is that they're usually easy to fix. Figuring out whether something is actually broken and, if so, the best way to fix it is surprisingly difficult.Again, I don't say "Stop modifying things that have meaningless effect on the game", but I think that on the long run, it's better if the development concrentrates on finding obvious and major bugs, slowly but continously. If there aren't any, it's okay to search for cosmetic, meaningless issues, but since most of these aren't obvious bugs, it would be important to put them to a different component than strict fixes. The Fixpack was promoted as "The fixes of Baldurdash. Plus a few hundred more.". I think this is nice, but the real goal shouldn't be to change its second sentence to "Plus a few thousand more".

CamDawg says Fixpack is an open project (which is true in a certain meaning), but he (and the core team) makes the significant decisions (e.g. where to put a new change). I think this is okay, this is why a Core team should be set up. On the other hand, the team consists of people and thus these changes are subjective, and if they're put to the same component as strict, obvious fixes, it may result in the disagreement of several players and modders who think about the same issue in a different way. Let me provide two examples.

The first is the above discussed pirate alignment matter.
CamDawg wrote:
They're involved in illegal activites, with a high probablity that those activities include slave trading. All things considered, they're evil.Now ister's words:
They are engaged in illegal activity. To me this basically means that they aren't LG or LN. Perhaps they are involved in slavery. But there are all sorts of reasons why TN NPCs might be incolved in smuggling.And a quote from Mongerman:
And considering this is a game where a lawful good cleric of lathender can murder townsfolk, then make a arbitary donation at a temple to raise his reputation, the pirates do not have to be evil.We can see three opinions here. I feel my approach closer to the latter two. Let's see some valid points from them.
Someone involved in illegal activity doesn't have to be evil necessarily. Perhaps you are forced to do it (Blackmail, or you can't feed your children. Only a Lawful Good character would let his children starve to death if there is no other choice). OK, they are pirates, so the latter cases are not too probable. But again, perhaps they just escaped from the prison and they're innocent, but meanwhile they lost their families and everything they had, so they became pirates and thus involved in slavery. The prison changed them, they hate people and world. But their conscience might not be so clear while doing their activity. And as everyone who is desperate because of being revealed, they attack the intruders of their lair. Does all this have to mean such a radical Alignment change? Illegal activity may affect Reputation only, but not Alignment. As istar said, you can kill innocent people and then donate to a temple to raise Reputation. This is developer intent, and you Fixpackers said you try to suit that. Furthermore, it's also possible that as Neutral Good characters, they strive for balance. They don't do it because they agree with it morally. Instead, they do it because they feel its required for the balance. Perhaps the slaves they trade are from a place/city which did the same with their families long ago. Revenge. Minsc is Chaotic *Good* in BG2, do you think he would spare the life of someone who killed or tortured a friend of him? All in all, I think a creature's Alignment can't be always reliably judged based on the current activity he is doing in the game.

My second example is a "stronger" issue, where CamDawg explicitly states that it's a totally objective and obvious fix.
And yes, breaking the Fixpack into multiple components would be horrific. We've already had people object to things which are clearly bugs (such as Irenicus-as-demon in the finale spouting ogre lines) so I have no doubt that once we start making one or two things optional the rest will be requested.I'll talk about the component issue later. Now, the interesting is "Irenicus-as-demon in the finale spouting ogre lines". We all remember in his Slayer form, Jon Irenicus is using an ogre's soundset (damage sounds, "I will crush you to goo" etc.). I personally found it cool, though I don't doubt that many players might feel "crush you to goo" irrelevant and incorrect. But this is only a part of the players, even if it's the majority. So the picture is not clear.

The picture is not clear, because other players (such as me) might want to keep it while enjoying the strict fixes. To keep it just because I like it, for no logical reason. Or let's be a little creative: Irenicus is a high-level magic-user, and in the battle, he might have decided to change his voice magically to something more powerful and frightening, such as an Ogre Berserker. Many users might ask me now what nonsense I'm speaking about. Perhaps it's nonsense, but not necessarily to everyone. It was just an example that things that are marked as "clear bugs" might be not as clear as a grammar error in a BG2 dialogue.

So CamDawg and the core fixpackers always found some logic always when adding a change as a fix to the Core component. But it's subjective, according to their viewpoint and mentality. CamDawg provided reasons to mark them evil such as being involved in illegal activity, slavery, and attacking people who enter their lair. I've provided counter-examples above. In the present world, slavery is illegal and despised by the society. On the other hand, in the old ages, it was often legal, and accepted morally as well. I don't want to say that it's necessarily an accepted activity in BG2's world, I just want to say that sometimes when we consider something to be obvious, usually it's because we judge it according to what we learnt and seen in our life and education. Other people e.g. from a different culture (or from a different age) might not think (or might have not been thinking) in the same way. In a similar way, players having a higher imagination might consider the Ogre sound of Irenicus as the effect of magic. (While others clearly consider it as an annoying bug. To each his own -- it's subjective, isn't it?)

I second what ister says. I doubt most people notice what alignment the pirates are as they are being crushed under the bootheel of a bhaal spawn.I quoted this again to introduce my main point. And it's game-centrism. I believe that a modder should be game-centric, and not mod centric. This means that playing experience is more important than what lies in the mod files. Especially if the data in the files have no visible/meaningful effect in the game. I think CamDawg and many in the fixpack team are typically analyze these processes from a technical view, from a modder's view. It's nice, and I think that such things should be fixed if found AND unambigious. (Such as the BG1 issue of Delainy having Male gender in her file, which I spotted accidently, and forwarded it to CamDawg in case G3 plans to support an extended BG1 Fixpack in the future.) So again, I don't discourage this kind of fixing. On the other hand, if it becomes too dominant, it's not good because then it becomes the primary activity of the development, the tempting, quick tool of the "let's find as many issues as possible, big or not" principle. Furthermore, as I said: "unambigious". So if it's an alignment change or anything that is similarly arbitrary/subjective, it may be preferred by certain players while disliked by another, and thus the best way is to separate them from the Core, strict fixes. (As a side note, the exaggerated technical approach will also limit constructive, creative aspect. The example I provided for Irenicus using an ogre soundset is far from perfect, but I think it illustrates my point.)

Now about components. You reject my suggestion to make a separate component for the "subjective fixes" by arguing that then many people would request "clear fixes" to be moved from the Core (due to personal preference), and that other optional things would be requested. As I clarified it earlier, one additional compoent would be perfect as a golden mean. (I might have written "three components" earlier. By that, I meant three major component 'groups': Core+TextUpdate, Optional-But-Cools, and the new one for the "subjective fixes".) You will never know if you don't give it a try. To tell the truth, I think there will be very few players (in fact, probably no one) who would dislike the new component. I'll provide some details of this concept below.

1. Core Component. For obvious, strict fixes such as:
Strings Skalds Not Receiving Their +1 THAC0 Bonuses Crom Faeyr Should Kill Ettins ... and many more.
2. Game Text Update -- separate component, OK

3. Additonal Fixes -- I don't mind if you insist on calling them 'fixes', hence the name I suggest here. While I prefer strict definitions of Fix, I respect that you define certain things as "fixes" which I would call "tweaks" instead. The main point is to add any things to this component which are not *obvious* fixes that are added to the Core component. A good basis for a definition for "obvious" or "clear" fixes can be the following: something which specification/intepretation does not, or only very slightly depends on developer subjectivity, and where the output (= the fix) is trivial, or has more options but only one of them is unambigiously or trivially true. The Crom Faeyr or the Skald fixes above are good examples for these *strict*, *core* fixes. Note: the mentioned fixes determine the quality/experience of the gameplay as well, unlike e.g. changed pirate alignments. Someone could now argue that "if it's a meaningless change that can't be seen in the game, why the big hassle about them?". Well, the force of habit. Players don't like "invisible" changes, changes behind the scene. "But issues like that of the pirates worry me." They like the good old way the game works, if the change is not trivially and strictly an obvious fix.
So to this component, here are examples that could go in:
Give Triple Multi-Classes Unique HLA Tables -- I remember Felinoid had a different optinion about these. If I'm wrong or if it has been sorted out meanwhile, I apologise. It doesn't change on the main point anyway. Dogs at de'Arnise Keep Going Hostile -- do dogs have to be neutral to the party who came to free the Keep? They might attack everyone, as they might have "got the staggers" (who knows what trolls did with them), or just became hostile for *any* other reason (like dogs may do, generally). Creature Alignment Corrections -- I find it possible that a certain number of these is quite trivial, but as I clarified it above, it's hard to determine a creature's alignment reliably in every case based on its activity/deeds in the game (unlike Reputation, which would be a more direct mirror of these deeds). This is what you write it on your site: "We change the creature files to the alignments we believe make most sense for them; as there are inevitably judgment calls involved, please feel free to discuss any of these changes in the forums." You admit they may be inevitably subjective, but I think these are too many fixes to be discussed separately. And anyway, it wouldn't help any to the players who prefer the minimum set of strict fixes. Its existence in the Additional Fixes component would perfectly solve this. And everything that is not trivial, and thus the output may be subjective.I think this component would do no harm. It would satisfy players who like these fixes, and would also give a chance to those who want only strict ones. Such as istar who said "As a user I'm mostly interested in a true "minimalist" set of fixes.", Sikret, or myself. And probably many many others. In the description of the "Additional Fixes" component, you could write something like "These are also recommended fixes by the Fixpack authors. Since they are not so trivial as the ones in the Core Component, a certain level of subjectivity is unavoidable when interpreting and fixing them. Consequently they are available as a separate component [by the request of certain modders or players.][etc. etc. etc.]" The parts in brackets are optional. Well, it's just an illustration, of course I don't mind if you write any other description (even if it's different content-wise), as long as this component is created and added.

4. Super Happy Fun Lucky Modder Pack -- separate component, OK

5. All Optional-But-Cool components. OK.

What do you players (and everyone else) think of this? Would you prefer this additional, optional component? (Only theoretically, as I don't know if Fixpackers will support it. I hope they will.) Since its developers say that it's an open project, I think this is good opportunity for everyone to express their opinion. The more people react, the better picture the Fixpack team will get IMHO.

Edit: grammar.

[ October 12, 2006, 23:21: Message edited by: Baronius ]

I sincerely hope that they (or anyone, really) goes through and puts all of the Fixpack changes to similar scrutiny as the end result can only be a better Fixpack.
I must be mad to waste my time in this way. When you don't admit the most obvious things, there is no reason for us to waste our time on other issues which may be really controversial.

Of course, I understand why you didn't accept our arguments. To agree with us would mean to exclude Oversight mod's logic from the fixpack and this is not what you are willing to do. After all Oversight mod (no matter what wrong-headed and invalid logic it follows) is hosted at your site.

The big problem with this idea and others in this vein--"you should only change what you know is developer intent for sure" is a common parallel--is that at its logical conclusion you can not change anything. Only when taken to a strawman extreme. Adopting kittens or donating money cannot make up for the sheer weight of evil deeds Irenicus has performed. You can't grind alignment like an MMO skill (well, reputation, but not alignment). But the pirates...what do we really know about them? Only one thing, and a rather broad thing at that, since specifics aren't terribly important in this case and so weren't included.

While the "Jaheira bandits" certainly seem like a mistake (you'd have to stretch pretty damn far to get a explanation for why LG characters would hold up someone for money), the LN paladin is rather questionable (I think there was something recently about naming conventions for 'paladins' of other alignments?), and the NG otyugh is just plain wrong (as a monster it has a specific alignment in the MM), that doesn't mean you should go around changing every single creature file to the alignment you think it 'should' be.

Especially when some of them actually make a modicum of sense the way they are. Change the big stuff, the things you've got actual info on. Change monsters, things with class-required alignments, NPCs with actual personalities, but when you get into the stuff where it's just someone who attacks you with no reason, I'd err on the side of caution. Now, making those pirates evil is still a good change, and certainly deserves to be in the mod, but as a fix? Nah.

Also, I have to say I'm curious why you're so averse to making more components. I mean, EoU has 40+ components IIRC, and from the documentation page it seems like the BG2 Fixpack is much bigger than EoU. And yet having more than 3 or 4 components would be trouble? It's probably just something I don't understand as I haven't actually coded WeiDU, so could you tell me (and surely others here also curious) the reasoning? :) Surely the "slippery slope" argument you put forth before can't be all there is.

EDIT:
Something occurs to me. Can the changes be differentiated when looking in the override folder? That is, if a gamer personally found certain creatures to have 'wrong' alignments, could they simply find and delete those specific changes if they wanted? Ignoring for the moment additional changes to same creatures possibly made by other aspects of the mod. (Though that could be solved with the application of SK to change alignments, couldn't it?)

[ October 13, 2006, 00:56: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

We also suggested that the alignment changes shift to the "optional" installation field. In that way, they could keep their Oversight mod active in the fixpack project without compelling it to all players who want to install the fixpack. I can't understand why even that suggestion was rejected.

Only when taken to a strawman extreme. Of course, and I know no one's arguing for that. :) (Well, OK, Blucher might be.) My point was that the argument of 'put subjective fixes into a new category' will not resolve the issue, ever. It'll placate Baronius and Sikret, sure, but everyone's going to have a slightly different place (more or less conservative) where they'd draw that line. ister, Mongerman, and you will likely have different divisions over which you'll find something as not a fix--hell, we have stark divisions even amongst the team itself--and someone like Blucher won't be happy until we have something substantially less than Baldurdash. We can go through the progressions of finer and finer gradations but it will quickly become unmanageable.

As an example, BG2 Tweaks has 100+ components and I can assure you that the maintenance and testing required for every release and component scales exponentially. I'd rate Fixpack as orders of magnitude more complex (just writing the documentation took me a week,and I'd still describe many sections of it as sparse or vague) which is why I'm personally so reluctant to even take that first step--it's a zero-sum equation. If Bar thinks we're wasting time not fixing anything of significance now, just you hold on until we start breaking it up. :)

That being said, I refer to Nythrun's excellent I *HATE* this fix! (http://forums.gibberlings3.net/index.php?showtopic=7890) thread, where we explain how to remove and change fixes you don't like and our commitment to assisting you in that process. (Nythrun also offers more detail of why breaking down the Fixpack is not as simple as it seems, so I suggest a good read even if you aren't interested in actually hacking apart the Fixpack. If only y'all got to deal with her eloquence instead of me and my steafast logic. :) ) The alignment section is very straightforward as we code 'modularly' for ease-of-maintenance. A creature may be patched many times for different fixes--removing/changing the alignment patching won't affect other fixes for the creature. You can alter it to your wishes or remove it entirely and still take advantage of the rest of the pack.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say it will be unmanageable if you're going through more and more "progressions of finer and finer gradations". There is no need to constant work. It's only a few more components. Did you read my post? I suggested one component to collect all such "subjective" stuff. However, I would like to add that it's okay if certain things are added to separate optional components. Even with these, I don't think it will result in any management problems. Obviously you shouldn't create a new component for every change the users find to be "subjective", this is why I suggested the "Additional Fixes" component.

My point was that the argument of 'put subjective fixes into a new category' will not resolve the issue, ever. It'll placate Baronius and Sikret, sure, but everyone's going to have a slightly different place (more or less conservative) where they'd draw that line. ister, Mongerman, and you will likely have different divisions over which you'll find something as not a fix [..]Well, I think we can at least what a strict fix is. My quasi-definition (which was meant to be just an initiation) helps I think: something which specification/intepretation does not, or only very slightly depends on developer subjectivity, and where the output (= the fix) is trivial, or has more options but only one of them is unambigiously or trivially true.It perfectly applies on all fixes I could quickly check. The examples I provided for strict fixes were: Strings, Skalds Not Receiving Their +1 THAC0 Bonuses, Crom Faeyr Should Kill Ettins. Can we interpret these in any other way than bugs? No. Can the output be different? No. So it's definitely a fix. For the subjective, "additional fixes", I mentioned more, here is two: the dogs of Arnise Keep, and the Alignment changes. These cases are not so simple, are they? The hostile dogs may be specified as a normal phenomenon as well as an unusual (like you did). The output is that they are either changed or not. How are they changed, if they are changed? Well, like you did, you made them neutral. But as I've explained in my previous post, actually it isn't surprising that dogs may attack all people under these circumstances. As far as the Alignment fixes are concerned, well, we've seen enough different opinions in this thread. Many outputs, most likely one of the three Evil alignments.

Sorry if it appears to anyone that I was repeating my previous post above, I just want to make sure that everyone will see the point. So I think that with something similar to my above definiton, it's actually not so problematic to agree when we all draw our "comparator levels" for fixes/tweaks. If someone refines it or knows a better definition (well mine could obviously be rephrased/refined), it would be a good idea to share it. All in all, I think that if optional component(s) are available, everyone will be happy.

You said there is a problem with the documentation, as it takes a LOT of time. I believe this, however, moving certain things to *ONE* new component doesn't really need too much time. Even if a few more components are made (I wouldn't prefer it, but if it's what people want, so be it), I don't think it will mean any additional burden in documentation. Writing a few descriptions, that's all I can see. :)

As an example, BG2 Tweaks has 100+ components and I can assure you that the maintenance and testing required for every release and component scales exponentially."Exponentially" is meant to be an exaggeration, that's okay, but why does it take that much time at all? If a new component is added or an existing one is changed, it's a few tens of LOC. Or do the components have dependencies? Except you make a full revision on the code (which does not happen too often obviously), I can't imagine why it requires so much time, if you just extend it each time. Since I don't know the project, something probably escapes my attention.

The alignment section is very straightforward as we code 'modularly' for ease-of-maintenance. A creature may be patched many times for different fixes--removing/changing the alignment patching won't affect other fixes for the creature.Its maintenance would be catastrophic if you weren't developing a project of that size modularly.

Edit: now that I have checked the "*hate* this fix" thread, I start to see your problem. I think we've misunderstood each other. The thread (also )talks about dividing various fixes to smaller elements, which could result in thousands (= or place any high value here) of components indeed. But this is not what we ask. At least I assume Felinoid also doesn't want you to divide the Alignments to more components. They should be moved to a separate component altogether. Just like other subjective fixes. So I don't say that if someone has problem with one particular element of a fix, then *only* that element should be moved to a new component, no! The whole fix, i.e. the Alignment changes, for example. A fix is a logical unit, so their elements are of the same type, and if one of them is "subjective", then the whole fix is "subjective" as well. E.g. the Alignments, as I've already mentioned earlier.

Note: also, I use(d) the "change" in a different meaning than you, so you might have misunderstood those parts of my posts. By "change" I meant a whole logical group, i.e. something that you call a "fix". I used the word "change" instead of "tweak" to remain neutral. (So "change" can mean both a tweak and a fix, in the meaning I used it.)

something which specification/intepretation does not, or only very slightly depends on developer subjectivity, and where the output (= the fix) is trivial, or has more options but only one of them is unambigiously or trivially true.This is not a practical definition--it would exclude fixes for clear bugs such as Viconia's missing pips, mentioned above.

As for the dogs: they are neutral. They only go hostile when they respond to the nearby shouts of the otyugh, yuan-ti, or trolls--the only place in the game (that I know) where shouts of unrelated creature groups affect one another. If the dogs were meant to be hostile the devs probably would have coded them as such, as they did with every other hostile creature in the area.

At least I assume Felinoid also doesn't want you to divide the Alignments to more components. Actually, that was what I was thinking, but not very far. The idea being that the main stuff, like "monsters, things with class-required alignments, NPCs with actual personalities" would stay in the core fixes, but the more questionable & trivial stuff like the SB pirates would be listed as Additional Alignment Changes, probably being part of one of those divisions you were making. And naturally all would still be up for change discussions (if you think someone should be a different alignment) as part of the open process. Then past that, we leave it up to individuals to tweak how they like on their own, using the "Hate this fix" thing or something like that.

While I do see the logic of uniting fixes into solid blocks, I think some are simply...too big. We're talking about hundreds(?) of alignment changes, which range wildly on the objective-subjective scale. IMO, things like Irenicus not being good or a definitively TN monster being TN don't deserve to be lumped in as subjective just because there are other alignment changes that are subjective. And yes, it probably would be a battle about where the line is drawn, but I think once the dust clears it'd probably be an improvement.
This is not a practical definition--it would exclude fixes for clear bugs such as Viconia's missing pips, mentioned above. So give a choice. When I had to pick which pip to give Safana in my BG1 NPC Remix, I just made four (or was it three?) different versions, because I imagined the end users would appreciate being given the choice (I know I would). And from what I've seen when installing WeiDU mods, making more choices than just install/don't seems quite possible. Given, it's probably a little bit more space for BG2 CHR files than the BG1 files, plus there are more choices of where to put it, but I don't imagine it'd be prohibitively large to do it that way, when compared to how big it is already.

EDIT: Nuts. That would require a separate component, wouldn't it? Nevermind.

RE: de'Arnise dogs
This is one of the places where I think a more important question than "Is this a strict fix?" is "Who wouldn't want this?!" Screw whether it's a fix or not, it's just plain not fun to have to chase those damn things (it wouldn't be half as bad if they attacked you instead of running away). And especially for SoA-only players who would have to scour that wall for where the dog meat dropped. Come to think of it, maybe it should be a part of EoU. :shake:

something which specification/intepretation does not, or only very slightly depends on developer subjectivity, and where the output (= the fix) is trivial, or has more options but only one of them is unambigiously or trivially true.This is not a practical definition--it would exclude fixes for clear bugs such as Viconia's missing pips, mentioned above.As originally written, it was meant to be a starting basis, a guideline. It can be extended or changed. Furthermore, is the lack of definition better than an "incomplete" definition? The definition indeed excludes certain changes, you are right, but the set of "undefined" fixes is still smaller, so there is only a few left. And I emphasize it again that a definition could serve as a guideline when making decisions, if it's not accurate enough in a matter, or if developers think that the matter should be an exception. Otherwise, if there is no definition or guideline at all, then we're there again: subjectivity, and unique examination for every change of every fix.

While I do see the logic of uniting fixes into solid blocks, I think some are simply...too big. We're talking about hundreds(?) of alignment changes, which range wildly on the objective-subjective scale. IMO, things like Irenicus not being good or a definitively TN monster being TN don't deserve to be lumped in as subjective just because there are other alignment changes that are subjective.Well, just because they would be among Additional Fixes, it doesn't mean they are subjective.

I think we start to over-discuss this matter. If certain questionable strict fixes are added to an Additional Fixes component together with their stricter "companions", it won't do any harm. Those who want to install all just have to press one more Y (or I) than earlier. On the other hand, players such as me could also use Fixpack (if I start playing BG2 again some day), not choosing to install the Additional Fixes. But this is my opinion only.

EDIT: Nuts. That would require a separate component, wouldn't it? Nevermind.If you mean alternate choices (i.e. only one can be selected from more options), no it does not require more components. There is a WeiDU element called SUBCOMPONENT. If one component has more subcomponents, the player can choose only one.

To tell the truth, I don't think it would be so immensely much work to divide e.g. the Alignment Changes, or any other stuff. Although this is relatively a big mod project in its category, it can be extended and changed dynamically and effectively if the structure and dependencies are correctly managed and coordinated. Even a much much bigger could be correctly maintained with the appropriate method.(CamDawg didn't give an answer to my question in my previous post, where I asked what escapes my attention when I see that it shouldn't be so hard to extend/manage the BG2 Tweaks he mentioned.)

On the other hand, I understand that often, even little work can be felt as a burden. The Fixpackers are involved in other projects, so their free time is limited. However, since e.g. CamDawg seems to deal a lot with it (while still having time to participate constantly in threads such as this), I suppose that he has enough time "allocated" to Fixpack development (I.e. Fixpack has higher priority among his projects).
Additionally, and this is the most important, the Fixpack is improved continously. It is often promoted as something which constantly includes newer fixes if something is found. In the light of this fact, I really find it unbelievable that optional components or fix divisions can't be done due to too much work. If new things can be added, then changes and refinments are also possible. Only intention is needed, nothing else. (I think that refining the fixes should also be a primary task, not just adding new and new fixes. Refinements increase quality.)

RE: de'Arnise dogs
This is one of the places where I think a more important question than "Is this a strict fix?" is "Who wouldn't want this?!" Screw whether it's a fix or not, it's just plain not fun to have to chase those damn things (it wouldn't be half as bad if they attacked you instead of running away). And especially for SoA-only players who would have to scour that wall for where the dog meat dropped.You could return to the original matter if you say things such as "Who wouldn't want this". :) Because it can apply to other "subjective" or non-trivial fixes. On the other hand, I've never denied that player experience is the most important (hence why I say the Fixpackers should tend to be more game-centric), so it's a good change with the dogs, but not a strict fix. It's a comfortability function. Like infinite bags or similar, in EoU (or somewhere else. I don't know the details of such mods). (E.g. the dogs are already stressed and strained, and the start of the fight is what eventually makes them totally mad, so they become hostile and start to flee.) You're right, and I have no problem with this change, but if you support additional components for certain fixes, I think that the Arnise Dogs should definitely be moved from the Core.

[ October 13, 2006, 15:57: Message edited by: Baronius ]

As originally written, it was meant to be a starting basis, a guideline. It can be extended or changed. Furthermore, is the lack of definition better than an "incomplete" definition?We already have a working definition: bug determination is based on whether something reasonably works how the developers intended. I.e. the keep dogs: no other creature groups respond to other group shouts, and they're coded as neutral. Is it reasonable that the devs wanted them to become hostile because the party attacked a troll outside of the walls? I don't see any way the answer is yes. It's more reasonable that, if they wanted them hostile, they would have simpled coded them as such. Did the developers want enemy mages to target lightning bolts at themselves? We can not know that for sure, but reasonably the answer is no.

The definition itself doesn't matter all that much because someone will always claim it's being interpreted too conservatively or liberally. (Yes, it's been argued that Bioware intended for enemy mages to fry themselves because the mages aren't perfect and can 'make mistakes.') Like as not, there have to be judgements of the nature This Is A Bug And Shall Be Fixed Thusly. The team approach is, again, designed to ensure these are correct and reasonable decisions, with the open process allowing anyone to point out errors.

Fixes for identified bugs is also based on developer intent, but we don't omit fixes in the case of ambiguity of how to fix it (missing pips). The Pending Fixes forum is full of heated team, uh, discussions where we're unable to decide the best fix and the issue has simply been left open for the time being.

If you mean alternate choices (i.e. only one can be selected from more options), no it does not require more components. There is a WeiDU element called SUBCOMPONENT. If one component has more subcomponents, the player can choose only one.Each SUBCOMPONENT is, itself, a component--so yes, the range of choices for Viconia would require a new component for every possible selection. I really don't want to think about Anomen's missing four pips or (gah) Jan and Imoen's missing thieving points.

As for maintenance complexity, components of BG2 Tweaks interact with one another. The addition or change of one component means I need to vet it against all possible combos of other Tweaks with which it may interact. (In a few cases, I also have to check those components with their own dependencies--you can see where this is going.) One component = one check, two components = three checks, three components = seven checks ... n components = ((2^n) - 1) checks.

Given that more than two categories won't really change the number of people who are happy with the categorizations, the smaller number means we can produce new releases on a faster time line.

@Fel
As I mentioned, I'd love for someone to put these under the microscope. :)

Cast Holy Smite in the Sea's Bounty and tell me that the pirates alignment has no effect on gameplay.

And I think that calling all alignment changes "subjective" is questionable. A LN Paladin is about as close to something that's objectively a bug as it can be. For me the fix/bug standard is set by asking "is it plausible that the developpers wanted it this way?". And if I apply the rule (that I made up) my judgement is
-LN Paladin - bug
-De 'Arnise dogs - bug, CamDawgs argument is compelling
-SB pirates - tweak. I can easily picture that the developers wanted them to be neutral.

There is a WeiDU element called SUBCOMPONENT. If one component has more subcomponents, the player can choose only one. Yes, but tha